|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 150 Records
-
1992 (6) TMI 166
... ...
... ... ..... al and substantive justice in the matter. 9.. As we have noticed supra, except on assumption which in our view was not based on any substantial material but merely on surmises that the distance involved in the conveyance of the goods should lead to conclusion that the gunny bags, should be of good quality there is no material worth justifying the invocation of the suo motu powers of revision by the revisional authority on the facts and circumstances of this case. In the teeth of a specific and categoric finding of the first appellate authority based on accounts on the nature of the transaction, the Joint Commissioner in our view has exceeded his suo motu powers of revision to interfere with the well-considered finding of the appellate authority without any sufficient material or basis. 10.. In the result, the order of the Joint Commissioner is set aside and the order of the first appellate authority is restored. The tax cases (appeals) are allowed. No costs. Appeals allowed.
-
1992 (6) TMI 165
... ...
... ... ..... he tax net. The decision of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Sugar Mills Ltd. v State of Rajasthan 1979 43 STC 13 pertains to the interpretation of the term sale price defined in the Central Sales Tax Act which again was referred and relied upon by a Division Bench of this Court in Kurkunta and Seram Stones (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka 1987 87 STC 105 supra ILR 1992 Kar 163. We are of the view that it is unnecessary to consider the said decision having regard to the question posed for our consideration in this reference. Consequently, the question referred to us is answered as follows The exemption under rule 6(4) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules, 1957, is not available to a dealer irrespective of the particular circumstances of the case. The availability of the deduction under the said rule has to be tested in the manner laid down by the judgments of the Supreme Court in Dyer Meakin 1970 26 STC 248 and D. C. Johar and Sons 1971 27 STC 120. Reference is answered accordingly.
-
1992 (6) TMI 164
... ...
... ... ..... section 7. Under section 7, every dealer liable to pay tax under the Central Sales Tax Act will have to apply and register himself or itself. 8.. One cannot assume that every dealer is a dealer liable to be taxed under the Central Sales Tax Act and, therefore, it is not possible to assume that every dealer should be treated as a registered dealer and in such a situation, he should have issued the declaration under form C in the case of purchase in the course of inter-State sales. This apart, as already noted above, the appellant has no control over the manner of functioning of the Indian Railways. The Government of India has issued a declaration and prima facie the same shall have to be accepted without being unnecessarily influenced by the technicalities of procedural matters. 9.. In the circumstances, we have no hesitation in setting aside the order of the Commissioner and restore the order of the first appellate authority. Appeals are accordingly allowed. Appeals allowed.
-
1992 (6) TMI 163
... ...
... ... ..... petitioner was not entitled to do so. Mr. S.P. Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner, fairly stated before us that the petitioner will make every attempt to refund these excess amounts collected from the customers, to the respective customers as far as possible. This statement is also recorded by us here as an additional factor which would go a long way in favour of the petitioner while considering the case under section 18A. Having regard to the finding given by the Appellate Tribunal that there was a mutual mistake and the petitioner was not guilty of any deliberate attempt to enrich himself by invoking the provisions of the Act and in the light of the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no reason to impose any penalty on the petitioner under section 18A of the Act in the manner done by the respondents. The levy of penalty will have to be accordingly set aside. It is accordingly set aside. Revision petitions are allowed. Petitions allowed.
-
1992 (6) TMI 162
... ...
... ... ..... led by the decision of their Lordships in Kanpur Vanaspati Stores v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1973 32 STC 655 (SC), wherein it is held that it is well-settled that no one can challenge the validity of a provision of an Act or rules made thereunder or even a notification issued either under the Act or under the Rules made, before the authorities constituted under the Act. So is the view taken by two Division Benches in Fairdeal Motor s case 1982 49 STC 164 (MP) (1982) 15 VKN 164 and Noshirwan and Co. case 1982 49 STC 167 (MP) (1981) 14 VKN 54. The Tribunal did exceed its jurisdiction in entering upon the question of vires of the notification and holding it to be discriminatory and void. The question No. 2 is also answered in favour of the department and against the assessee. 7.. References are answered accordingly. No order as to costs. 8.. Let a copy each of the order be placed on the records of M.C.C. No. 188 of 1986 and No. 194 of 1986. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1992 (6) TMI 161
... ...
... ... ..... of the Competent Authority in completing the proceedings. The appellant himself has been seeking adjournments. This apart, as the matter was complicated and a lot of evidence had to be collected and examined, the proceedings took time. Keeping in view the facts of the case, we hold that there has been no fatal or inordinate delay in finalisation of the proceedings under the Act. (iv) Another contention raised by the appellant s learned counsel is that non-supply of reasons to believe under section 6(1) of the Act would vitiate the proceedings. The failure to supply the reasons recorded by the Competent Authority for initiating the proceedings would vitiate the same only if non-supply of reasons has prejudiced the case of the appellant. There is nothing on record to show that any prejudice has been caused to the appellant on account of non-supply of the reasons to believe . This contention, therefore, cannot be upheld. In the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
-
1992 (6) TMI 160
Summons for directions to be taken out by official liquidator, Sale to be subject to confirmation by court, Winding up - Powers of liquidator
-
1992 (6) TMI 159
Winding up – Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... len Industries (P.) Ltd. 1972 42 Comp. Cas. 125 (SC), Ultimate Advertising and Marketing v. G. B. Laboratories Ltd. 1989 66 Comp. Cas. 232 (All.), A.C.K. Krishnaswami v. Stressed Concrete Constructions (P.)Ltd. 1964 34 Comp. Cas. 6 (Mad.),. Mrs. C. R Chandra v. Tirupati Cotton Mills Ltd. 1971 41 Comp. Cas. 94 (Mad.), Registrar of Companies, Punjab v. Ajanta Lucky Scheme and Investment Co. (P.)Ltd. 1973 43 Comp. Cas. 314 at 317 (Punj.), Suresh Shenoy v. Cochin Stock Exchange Ltd. 1989 65 Comp. Cas. 240 (Ker.) and Malhotra Steel Syndicate v. Punjab Chemi-Plants Ltd. 1989 65 Comp. Cas. 546 (Punj. and Har.). However, having regard to the view taken by me, it is unnecessary to refer to these decisions and deal with each one of them separately. Having regard to the above uncontroverted facts, it would not in any event be in the interest of justice or public interest to wind up the respondent-company. In the result, the company petition will stand dismissed. However, I say no costs.
-
1992 (6) TMI 158
Winding up – Exclusion of certain time in computing periods of limitation, Power of court to assess damages against delinquent, directors, etc.
-
1992 (6) TMI 143
Dutiability ... ... ... ... ..... idence has been produced before him regarding transformation of the material into a new product and marketability thereof and he has clearly mentioned regarding non-discharge of burden of proof by the department in this respect. 12. emsp We find that even at this stage the department has not produced any evidence in support of its contention and no technical literature or market enquiry report or any other pamphlet, design or material or technical write-up has been put up before us and mere reference to some processes is not sufficient for the purpose of arriving at a definite conclusion. 13. emsp Further the department has also not shown in the above context as to how the case law cited by them would be applicable to the facts of the present case. 14. emsp In view of the above position the Department s case remains unsubstantiated even at this stage. Therefore we see no reason to interfere with the order of the Collector already passed. In the result the appeal is dismissed.
-
1992 (6) TMI 139
Modvat Scheme - Interpretation of ... ... ... ... ..... nts have been availing of MODVAT credit pursuant to the provisions contained in Rule 57B. There is no dispute as to the input as well as the supplier being a SSI unit. What the department wants to rely upon and restrict availment to a specified amount is the Notf. 177/86 issued in exercise of the power under Rule 57A. When non-obstante clause in Rule 57B is specifically in relation to availment of credit for the duty amount, the said provision obviously prevails over the directions vide Notf. 177/86 and as such the restriction imposed vide the said notification cannot be brought into play. 9. The denial of credit to the extent of Rs. 18,623.01 is only because of Notf. No. 177/86 dated 1-3-1986 and not on any other count and when the said notification cannot be brought into play the demand raised and confirmed cannot be sustained and has to be set aside. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed and order of the authority below is set aside with consequential reliefs to follow.
-
1992 (6) TMI 138
Modvat - Deemed Credit ... ... ... ... ..... m scrap available in the market are exempted. We also looked at the issue from another angle. If Notification 182/84 as amended by Notification No. 246/87 dated 2-11-1987 is held to be extending exemption to all aluminium scrap, the Ministry, in the statutory order, would not have included aluminium scrap as eligible for deemed credit, since it is clearly recognisable as an item wholly exempted from duty by virtue of the aforesaid notification. Hence we are to take the view that it is necessary to lead evidence to show that the inputs have emanated from such manufacturers who have availed of the exemption under Notification 182/84. In the absence of these evidences, the Tribunal in the cases cited before us, have held that deemed credit cannot be denied in the case of conditional exemption notification, under which the inputs are exempted. We, therefore, do not see any infirmity in the order passed by the Collector (Appeals). The appeal from the Revenue is therefore rejected.
-
1992 (6) TMI 137
Appeal - Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... arefully perused the orders proposed by the two Ld. Brothers S/Sh. S.L. Peeran and G.P. Agarwal. Whether there is any sufficient cause for presenting the appeal late is always a matter of appreciation of evidence, facts and circumstances of each case. No general rule, in my view, can be laid down nor it appears to have been laid down in the bench decision in case of M/s. Ekantika Copiers v. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut referred to in the judgment of Shri S.L. Peeran that in all cases, delay in filing supplementary appeals must invariably be condoned. In the present case on the facts and circumstances available herein, I agree with the order proposed by the Ld. brother Shri G.P. Agarwal, Judicial Member. Consequently I allow both the applications for condonation of delay in respect of the supplementary appeals filed by the Department. Final order per G.P. Agarwal, Member (J) . - In view of the majority opinion, both the applications for condonation of delay are allowed.
-
1992 (6) TMI 136
Stay/Dispensation of prior deposit ... ... ... ... ..... g authority. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that the appellants do not have a prima facie case for dispensing with the requirement of pre-deposit of duty and penalty. However, taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, we consider, in the interest of justice, that the appellant No. (1) should deposit an amount of Rs. 9 /- lakhs (Rupees nine lakhs) on account of duty and upon such deposit being made, the requirement of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 5/- lakhs by appellant No. (1) shall be deemed to have been waived. The amount of Rs. 9/-lakhs should be deposited within a period of 12 weeks and compliance reported by 15th September 1992. Failure to comply with the requirement of pre-deposit would entail dismissal of the appeal without further reference to the appellant. 5. Upon consideration of all facts and circumstances of the case, we dispense with the requirement of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. I/- lakh by appellant No. (2) unconditionally.
-
1992 (6) TMI 135
Reference to High Court - Title or ownership of transfer ... ... ... ... ..... the Tribunal. There is no provision in the Customs Act for granting of any such relief and such matters are not incidental and necessary to make effective the exercise of the powers of this Tribunal conferred under Section 129B(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that it cannot be said that a question of law has arisen in this regard which requires to be referred to the Hon rsquo ble High Court for their decision in the abovesaid matter. 37. Accordingly, the application is partly allowed and we refer the questions of law appearing under (1) and (2) of Para-32 at page-17 of this order, to the Hon rsquo ble High Court of Orissa for their valued opinion in the abovesaid matter under Section 130(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. 38. The Registry is directed to submit the above Statement of Facts along with the Annexures mentioned therein and the other necessary documents to the Hon rsquo ble High Court of Orissa as expeditiously as possible.
-
1992 (6) TMI 134
... ...
... ... ..... contemporaneous the Collector ought to have given a reasoned finding after taking into account the fact that in respect of sophisticated machines or plants which are not covered by any published price-list, while deciding the question whether any two imports are contemporaneous the dates and terms of the relevant contracts have also to be taken into account. 18. In view of the foregoing we hold that the impugned order is not a speaking order and suffers from non-application of mind. We, therefore, set aside the order appealed against and remand the case to the concerned authority for de novo adjudication in accordance with law while adjudicating the case the adjudicating authority shall keep in mind the observations made by us in this order and grant suitable opportunity for personal hearing. Since the matter is quite old we shall appreciate if the case is adjudicated within 3 months of the date of receipt of this order. 19. The appeal is, therefore, allowed by way of remand.
-
1992 (6) TMI 133
Stay - Predeposit of penalty ... ... ... ... ..... late Tribunal is fully competent to reject the appeal. See, in this connection, the observations of this Court in respect of Section 129 prior to substitution of Chapter XV by the Finance Act, 1980 in Navin Chandra Chhotelal v. Central Board of Excise and Customs and Ors. (1971-3-SCR-357). The proviso, however, gives power to the Appellate Authority to dispense with such deposit unconditionally or subject to such conditions in cases of undue hardships. It is a matter of judicial discretion of the Appellate Authority. rdquo In view of the above decision of the Supreme Court, this argument of the learned Counsel cannot be accepted. However, in view of the reasonings given by me earlier, the appeal is allowed by way of remand to the original authority with a direction to grant a personal hearing to the appellant and dispose of the appeal in the light of the above observations made by me and this shall be done within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order.
-
1992 (6) TMI 132
Demand - Clandestine removal ... ... ... ... ..... g duty at the appropriate rate. There is nothing to show that this particular urea in this case was removed by the appellants as industrial grade urea without payment of duty. Merely because these bags of urea were found in the premises of M/s. Jaypur Timber and Veneer Mills, it cannot be presumed that this lsquo urea is industrial grade urea produced by the appellants factory and that they have removed the same without payment of appropriate duty under T.I. 68. The conclusions reached by the authorities below are based on mere presumptions and conjectures and, therefore, they are liable to be set aside. 6. The learned Counsel had also relied on the decision of this Tribunal reported in Order No. 64-Cal/87-95 in the case of M/s. Hindustan Fertilisers Corporation Limited v. Collector of Central Excise 6 rsquo Customs, Shillong. In that case also, the Tribunal had taken the very same view. In that view of the matter, this Appeal is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside.
-
1992 (6) TMI 131
Principles of natural justice violated ... ... ... ... ..... this appeal and the impugned order is set aside. The case is remanded back to the adjudicating authority with a direction to adjudicate the case afresh - both under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 and Customs Act, 1962 by granting an opportunity to the appellant to cross-examine the witnesses whom he may name before the adjudicating authority and he should also grant an opportunity to the appellant to adduce his evidence, if any, in this regard. A personal hearing should be granted to the appellant and thereafter the case should be adjudicated de novo as expeditiously as possible. In the meanwhile, as already ordered by us, the goods in question which are ordered to be released by the Additional Collector, viz. VCR, Wall-Clock, mini sewing machine and ladies sarees valuing at Rs. 14,737/- shall be released in favour of the appellant by the concerned Officers forthwith on receipt of this order or on production of a copy of this order by the appellant to the authorities concerned.
-
1992 (6) TMI 130
Redemption Fine ... ... ... ... ..... ely and to that extent the impugned order can be modified. But it was next contended that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the redemption fine of Rs. 5 lakhs is on the higher side. We have considered this submission. It is now seen that each consignment consists of 25 sets of Aqua-ultron water purifying equipment. The total value of both consignments is Rs. 7,58,122/-. Thus, each consignment values at Rs. 3,79,061/-. Taking into consideration the overall facts, we hereby reduce the redemption fine to a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand) for each of the consignments, thus in a total sum of Rs. 3 lakhs (Rupees three lakhs). The appellants should exercise this option for redemption within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. On the facts and circumstances of this case the imposition of the personal penalty of Rs. 10,000/- cannot be said to be excessive. We confirm the same. 14. The appeal is dismissed in the above terms.
........
|
